9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1998 (3) TMI 631 - SC - Indian LawsWhether mere existence of a right to maintenance as 15.2. 1970 is sufficient? Held that - Neither under the customary Hindu law nor under the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 nor under the Hindu Succession Act 1956 nor under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956 is there any provision which gives a share to a wife in the joint family property held her husband nor to a mother in the joint family property allotted to her son in a partition. As already stated that a wife or a mother in a Hindu joint family does not basically have a share in the joint family property and she has on a right to maintenance and the mere existence of such a right against the joint family property as on 15.2.1970 could not in law be treated as being equivalent to holding a share in the joint family property as on that date. The fact that land was reduced to the possession of the second appellant on 24.9.1970 could not be equated with her possession on 15.2.1970. Appeal failed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the partition deed dated 24.9.1970. 2. Whether the land allotted to the second appellant qualifies as 'stridhana land' under Section 3(42) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961. 3. Interpretation of the non-obstante clause in Section 21A of the Act. 4. Applicability of personal laws in defining 'stridhana land' under the Act. 5. Whether the second appellant was 'holding' the land on 15.2.1970. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Partition Deed Dated 24.9.1970: The partition deed executed on 24.9.1970 between the second appellant and her son was deemed valid by the tribunals as it fell within the permissible period specified by Section 21A of the Act. However, the core issue was whether this deed could alter the status of the land in question to 'stridhana land' for the purposes of the Act. 2. Whether the Land Allotted to the Second Appellant Qualifies as 'Stridhana Land' Under Section 3(42) of the Act: The first appellant argued that the land allotted to his wife should be excluded from his holding as it constituted 'stridhana land' within the meaning of Section 3(42) of the Act. The Authorized Officer and subsequent authorities held that the land could not be treated as 'stridhana' because the second appellant was not in possession of it at the commencement of the Act (15.2.1970). The Supreme Court upheld this view, stating that for land to be considered 'stridhana,' it must be held by the female in her own name as of the date of the Act's commencement. 3. Interpretation of the Non-Obstante Clause in Section 21A: The appellants contended that the non-obstante clause in Section 21A, which validates certain partitions and transfers, should override the conditions in Section 3(42). The Court clarified that Section 21A's non-obstante clause does not override Section 3(42) as the latter deals specifically with the definition of 'stridhana land.' The Court referenced precedents to emphasize that a non-obstante clause should be interpreted strictly and cannot be assumed to override all other provisions unless explicitly stated. 4. Applicability of Personal Laws in Defining 'Stridhana Land' Under the Act: The appellants sought to interpret 'stridhana land' in light of Hindu law principles concerning maintenance rights. The Court rejected this approach, stating that the Act applies to all communities irrespective of personal laws. The term 'stridhana land' under the Act does not carry the same meaning as in Hindu law. The Court cited previous judgments to support the view that definitions under land ceiling laws should not be construed based on personal laws unless explicitly referred to. 5. Whether the Second Appellant Was 'Holding' the Land on 15.2.1970: The Court examined whether the second appellant could be deemed to be 'holding' the land on the Act's commencement date due to her pre-existing maintenance right. It concluded that mere existence of a maintenance right does not equate to holding the land. The Court referenced definitions and interpretations of 'hold' and 'held' from various cases, emphasizing that possession must be backed by some right or title. The Court concluded that the second appellant's right to maintenance, which crystalized into land allotment on 24.9.1970, did not satisfy the requirement of holding the land as of 15.2.1970. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the land allotted to the second appellant could not be excluded from the first appellant's holding under the Act. The Court upheld the view that the land did not qualify as 'stridhana land' as the second appellant was not in possession of it on the Act's commencement date, and personal law principles could not be applied to interpret statutory definitions under the land ceiling laws.
|
